Help desk
< February 10	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

February 11

Deleting Wikipedia Account

Greetings. I am curious to know if it is possible for me to delete my Wikipedia account. I don't feel that I need it anymore. JEMASCOLA 02:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. There are other things you can do if necessary. See m:Right to vanish -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know what the deal with this is?

I was reading the sysop log [[1]] and noticed on 4 Feb, a user (User:Gaillimh) was sysoped. The user has a total of 166 edits (registered last month) and I don't see any vote for adminship. Anyone know the deal with this? .V. _[_Talk|Email] 04:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. There is something weirder in that log, see if you can find it ;-). Prodego ^talk 04:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've gotten me curious now. What is the "something weirder" in that log? --`/aksha 07:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see! Thanks for showing me that. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 04:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what? Anchoress 05:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK sorry, I'm dense. I already saw that and I don't see what's 'weirder about the log'... ?? :-) Sorry, you'll have to be a lot more specific with me. I'm usually pretty acute, but when I'm not, I'm very, very obtuse. Anchoress 00:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected trademark infringement?

The site http://www.noblood.org uses the Wikipedia logo to link to its wiki (on MediaWiki). Is this allowed? Where should I bring it up at? 203.109.174.60 04:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should not do that. Someone just needs to email them, and tell them to stop. WT:MF is probably the most related place. Prodego ^talk 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noticing that this sort of thing usually happens because people think wiki means Wikipedia ("check wiki for it"). They think Wikipedia's logo is a logo for any wiki. Just email then telling about the infringement and they'll probably comply. — Kieff | Talk 05:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent them an e-mail. Prodego ^talk 05:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SORTORDER?

Hello,

There is a template to change the default sort order, something like

\{\{SORTORDER|x, y}}

so I do no have to do:

\[\[Category:A|x, y]]
\[\[Category:B|x, y]]

...

I want to use it for Paul Trouillebert

I can not find the exact syntax, Thanks for your help

--JuanPDP 06:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the correct syntax for creating a default sort order is achieved through the use of Magic words. In this case, you would use {{DEFAULTSORT:x, y}}. Just put that above the categories and that should eliminate the need for individual sort keys. I hope you have a most wonderful day! Kyra_~(talk) 06:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --JuanPDP 07:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how I see my land

Template vandalism

Someone vandalized the template "Expand-section". I reverted the template itself, but the vandal-text seems to stay displayed! Please see [2]. I managed to get the template to redisplay properly in Precision tests of QED by deleting the template tag, saving the section, replacing the template tag, and saving the section again. HEL 16:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses your internet browser's cache to "remember" pages and save bandwidth. However, this can cause effects like lingering template vandalism. All you have to do is bypass your cache and the vandalism will be gone. PT O 16:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may have actually been an issue with job queue lag. Once you change a template, it can take a few minutes before all the articles using it are updated, depending on the job queue length. Your remove/save/replace/save cycle expedited this for the one article. Mike Dillon 17:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing

I'm creating an image for a Wikiproject that consists of several fair use images and a couple of arrows and text (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update#Digimon (creature)). While I understand the fair use bit, which license do I use when I upload it to Wikipedia? x42bn6 Talk 17:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't, I believe. I'm pretty sure that our fair use policies don't allow for fair use in Wikiproject banners. -Amarkov moo! 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it'd be using the image for decorative purposes, a definite no-no. Xiner (talk, email) 18:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nononono you misunderstand - it is an image for Digimon (creature) - nothing to do with a banner or anything. Which is why I never uploaded it to Wikipedia - I don't know what the license is, it's not finalised, and it takes up space. x42bn6 Talk 13:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using it in articles rather than on WikiProject pages or talk pages, then the normal fair use rules apply, I believe. Here are some pages that might be useful: Wikipedia:Fair use, Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ, Wikipedia:Image use policy. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for removal from talk page

My initial instincts are to remove a rambling essay from a talk page (here it is being added [3]). But I find myself in conflict with myself, since I just reverted a talk page from blanking which includes no more relevant rambling ([4] [5]). I seem to find myself in a corner here, can someone else advise on the rights and wrongs of the two cases? (In the latter case I am trying to do some informal mediation, but probably not very well). Notinasnaid 18:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further study shows that the first author is adding this essay in rather a lot of places. Notinasnaid 18:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At most one instance of this off-topic ramblings should exist. Xiner (talk, email) 18:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, talk pages are supposed to be used to discuss improving the article. Removing vandalism, rambling essays that discuss the subject rather than the article, wikichat, etc., is constructive. (I always cite WP:TPG in my edit summary so people can look for themselves.) For a lengthy essay that's at least peripherally about the article, it may be worth posting a note on the user's talk page about being welcome to repost a shorter version that talks specifically about how to improve the article; this might help prevent an edit war. But a user who is using talk pages to post the same thing, repeatedly, clearly is violating the rules, and while a note to the user is appropriate, it probably should just cite WP:TPG without inviting further postings. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working groups

Fine, I have seen infoboxes(?) on pages, about groups with particular interests - now I want one I can see no way to get to one. In particular, American Black history I think. --Dumarest 18:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this can help you find what you're looking for? I suspect you're looking for either a Template or WikiProject. Xiner (talk, email) 18:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki project, but how do I find a link to such?? --Dumarest 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the easiest way is to check on the article talk pages of related articles; they usually have project tags. But having done that, and tried googling, the closest I could find was Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora. That aims to cover African-Americans, although it's broader than that in scope. Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all else fails, you can create a WikiProject: see Wikipedia:WikiProject and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Deleted Articles

Hi, an article I was working on has been deleted (I had no chance to contest it, as I was busy all day yesterday and today). I don't believe it should have been deleted as while the user in question may not know about the place, it is of significant local interest, and of great historical significance. I'm currently a university student, so progress on the article has been slow, which is why there was a lack of content on it.

How do i go about getting it reinstated?

Tastyniall 18:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First step is to try talking with the admin who deleted it, who you can find from the deletion log. I assume you mean this deletion, so in this case the deleting admin was User:pgk. If this doesn't work, please see Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I'll try that out. Thanks! :) Tastyniall 18:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you might want to look at Deletion review if the article was deleted by Article for deletion or if you can't convince the deleter to restore the page. Another avenue is asking to have the text of the deleted article posted to your user space and you work on it there until it's finished. Once it is done, just post it where you did before. BuickCenturyDriver 01:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest you keep a copy on your userpage to work on until it is 'done' enough to avoid being deleted. Most Wikipedia articles are a work in progress, but to avoid being deleted, an article should clearly state why it significant as early as possible. That said, I have serious doubts as to how a church founded in the end of 2006 can have historic significance. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the church (as an on paper organisation) was formed in 2006, however, one of the churches (South Dalziel) that was part of the union is the oldest (dating back to the late 1700s) in the town proper. South Dalziel itself was formed from the oldest church in the area (St Patricks, dating back to the 1200s). The church buildings of the former churches remain part of the new church, and as such this is why i felt it merited inclusion. The font in use at the church was retrieved from the original church (St Patricks) too. Would there be any way of getting the article restored to my talk page so i can work on it? cheers, Tastyniall 11:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also be aware that while Wikipedia has strict guidelines for article suitability, other wikis have different requirements. Tastyniall may be able to find another public wiki which will welcome the article, even in a preliminary state. Other users on that wiki might help improve the article, perhaps into something suitable for Wikipedia. I suggested adding this advice to WP:EQ in Wikipedia talk:Etiquette#Suggesting alternative wikis?, along with starting a "Wiki outplacement service" for material that Wikipedia rejects; I invite interested readers to comment there. --Teratornis 18:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Against the rules or not?

Hi, I have a wikipedia account and I've found something off.

When I was searching BLEACH (the manga not the chemical) I found the chinese/japanese character for Hollow: 虚ろ.

However, by copying and pasting the Character, wikipedia allows me to use the character as my signature.

I was wondering wheter it was "against" the rules to use a non-latin character as a signature.

I can't find anything that contradicts what I've done, and I've seen some people do the same

(some on this page) and they haven't gotten in trouble.

So...

1) Is using a non-latin character as a signature against the rules?

2) Using the same character to create an account (it says NOT to use it without doing something) also against the rules?

3) Is using another outside program like Microsoft Word to "tweek" and transfer a "modified non-Latin character" to Wikipedia is against the rules.

Thanks for your time and co-operation.

Sincerely,

虚ろ 19:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the rules for a moment, I don't like signatures that do not show the username, because if I decide to contact that user later, I'll need to dig through my history to find the person. Xiner (talk, email) 19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it seems you haven't answered my questions. 虚ろ 19:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question 1. According to WP:SIGNATURE#Language_and_alphabet you must also include latin characters in your signature. 2. The system shouldn't allow you to create an account with non-lating characters. 3. I don't believe such a rule excists but thats not to say that I couldn't be wrong.Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We will most likely need to deal with non-latin sigs in the future, due to the one-login proposal across all language WPs. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 20:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#2 is wrong; MediaWiki will allow you to create non-Latin usernames. It will just not allow you to create usernames with a mix of several character sets (e.g., it will not allow users to mix Latin and Cyrillic).

As for your original questions; see the ongoing discussions at Wikipedia:Username. I don't understand what your third question is asking... Titoxd^(?!?) 20:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright

Fine, I am sure there is a page for image questions specifically but. I am and have been for some time working [a bit] on the trencher article. I have an image of a trencher. I found it on the web [URL if needed] and they replied that they have no control or such over it, it was a picture taken during a school trip by students at the [***] school. I contacted the school, and they agree, probably so, but they have no specific information, probably take by an unknown student on a trip to the museum, and no copyright information and no nothing. Can this be put up under a 'no copyright' image tag or such?? --Dumarest 19:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to say it is unknown copyright. It cannot be no copyright, just because the copyright holder is unknown. Therefore, I don't think it can be used, sadly. Notinasnaid 20:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Moves

Is it allowed for me to move a page, even though I am not admin, that has been through the requested moves process? The pages that I would be moving, would be ones with none, or very little opposition. Is this allowed?
Also, if I am allowed to move a page, do I delete it from the Requested Moves page, strike through it, or do nothing? Thanks, Asics talk 19:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is allowed but before you do anything you should read Help:Moving a page to get a better understanding of what happens when you move a page. Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 19:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need a holiday

I created a disambiguation page for Roman Holiday, so I had to move the film to Roman Holiday (1953 film). I see there are a lot of links to it. Is there an easy way to fix them? Do I need to spend the next bazillion years on them or can I leave it as is? Clarityfiend 20:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated Template:Audrey Hepburn, which should cover a couple dozen links. The rest need to be updated manually, to check if they really are links to the movie. This can be expedited with a tool like popups. I'll start from the end of the list and do some of them, since I see you've started at the beginning. Mike Dillon 21:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on! I'm not sure Roman Holiday should be a disambiguation page. IMO it should be the film, and you can place a disambig template on the top of that page for Roman Holiday (disambiguation). According to WP:MOS, pages should be named for the convenience of readers, and I daresay most people are looking for the film when they type that. In general, though, you don't have to worry so much about the links. Xiner (talk, email) 22:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links have been converted. If the film ends up being moved back to Roman Holiday, the only one that really needs to be changed back is in Template:Audrey Hepburn. The rest of the changed links can go through the redirect. Mike Dillon 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If the page move is considered appropriate, updating the links is important, for the convenience of readers clicking on links (to avoid their hitting a disambiguation page).

For what it's worth, there were less than ten links to Roman Holiday that didn't refer to the film. About 20 or so links to the film were through Template:Audrey Hepburn. The other 30+ links were direct links to the film, and it doesn't matter whether they go through a redirect if the page is moved. I didn't touch any links outside the main namespace (except the Hepburn template). Mike Dillon 22:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the page move is appropriate, then it's better to move it and not fix the links, then to not move it at all. A note on the talk page or on here could get you the help you need. In any case, I can't move the film page back to the original position because it's already occupied and I'm not an admin, so I can't delete it. Xiner (talk, email) 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I just meant that it's better to move it and fix the links than to leave them. It isn't strictly necessary because the disambiguation page should allow someone to move the links later. Mike Dillon 22:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a bit of a mess, haven't I? OK, after rereading the guidelines, I have to agree with Xiner: the film is the primary topic. What I could do is move Roman Holiday to Roman Holiday (disambiguation) and move the original article back. How does that sound? Clarityfiend 22:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon, sorry I forgot to thank you for helping out here. Clarityfiend, don't worry, we've all been there. I think what we have to do now is to write to WP:RM and ask for help there, because Roman Holiday as a page already exists, so we can't move the film page back without an admin's help. Xiner (talk, email) 00:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the request at WP:RM#Uncontroversial proposals. Mike Dillon 01:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The move was completed by GTBacchus (thanks GT). Mike Dillon 01:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anna nicole smith fix it.

your Anna Nicole Smith is wrong. Her original name is Not Vickie Lynn Marshall, it is Vickie Lynn Hogan!! And she was the playboy bunny of 1993, not 1992, jesus christ, and it's protected so I can't fix it. How can I? If I can't please do yourself. then end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluetigress (talk • contribs)

First, the name in the lead paragraph is not meant to be her birth name, it was her legal name at the time of her death. Her correct birth name is mentioned in the first sentence of the "Early life" section. Second, her first pictorial was in March 1992. She was Playmate of the Year in 1993, which the article correctly notes. Not sure what you think the problem is, since she was a "bunny" in both 1992 and 1993. Mike Dillon 22:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can post a comment on the talk page of an article even if the article is protected against editing (in extremely, extremely rare cases, the talk page may be protected as well). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Border Extends Across Screen

On my userpage, the picture near the bottom has a problem with the border. The border extends across the width of the screen and I don't know why. Could someone with knowledge of controlling images in Wikipedia, mosey on over and fix it for me? Thanks. --Seans Potato Business 23:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem, although the page hasn't been edited (per its history) since January 31st. I note that the top of the page says Near the bottom of my userpage is a sea/image monster with a crazy border that threatens to destroy us all. If you can tame it and save the world from its evil clutches, I'll build a loaf of bread in your likeness (and eat it). Thanks!

It's possible the problem has gone away because a page that you're transcluding (there are several) that was causing the problem has changed; it's possible that it's a brower thing (can't imagine why, but I'm viewing with firefox); and it's possible (given the heading to the page) that this is some sort of obscure game and there is no problem; not sure. In any case, since you got the elements of the user page from User:ClockworkSoul, you really might want to ask him/her. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bizzare game!! The problem appears both in IE and Opera (I don't have firefox installed) and it appears at work and at home. I don't think it's to do with cache. The problem has been there a long time, and the SOS at the top was supposed to tempt someone to help but I got fed up of waiting an asked here. A screenshot of the issue is here: http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5117/borderxv7.jpg - I'm referring to the white border that extends well beyond the image, if not exactly to both edges of the screen. --Seans Potato Business 04:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think my account was robbed

Hello

I just found my problem a week ago, I got into spanish version of Wikipedia, for writing for a word "culturismo", Ultimately i had got with problems with a membor called "Discusion" cause he get off my links, and afeter that i will get in again. A week ago, like I just say, i try to get into my account "NeptunoII" and it was imopssible for me, the first time i hit on bottom "e-mail my password, at the first i received but again the problema was on the next day, and it was impossible that time. Now my account has other than me, and I want to have it again. Link for this page is http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Culturismo&action=history . I want to say that i can demostrate my identidy by email, buy phone or how you need. I think wrong IP is 84.122.163.200

Thanks for all.

88.23.43.178 23:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have no influence on the spanish wikipedia. You will have to contact someone there. Viridae ^Talk 23:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vete a es:Wikipedia:Café/Portal/Archivo/Ayuda/Actual. —Dgies^t c 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]